Document généré le 1 juin 2018 11:58

Meta

Interpretation as a Communicative Event: A Look

through Hymes' Lenses
Claudia Angelelli

Résumé de l'article
Volume 45, numéro 4, décembre 2000
Au cours des dix dernières années, davantage de chercheurs et
URI : id.erudit.org/iderudit/001891ar de praticiens se sont intéressés à l'interprétation en milieu
social. Il s'agissait très souvent de voir quelles étaient les
DOI : 10.7202/001891ar
ressemblances et les différences entre cette forme
d'interprétation et les autres, des problèmes de
Aller au sommaire du numéro reconnaissance et de prestige se posant fréquemment.
Toutefois, ce furent souvent les critères de l'interprétation de
conférence qui furent appliqués à l'interprétation en milieu
social et qui déterminèrent comment l'évaluer et l'enseigner.
Ce transfert aveugle ne permettait évidemment pas de prendre
Éditeur(s) pleinement conscience de l'énorme complexité de
l'interprétation en milieu social. La présente recherche utilise
Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal la taxonomie de Hymes pour comparer et analyser deux
interprétations, une en milieu social et l'autre lors d'une
conférence, entre lesquelles notre analyse suggère qu'il y a
ISSN 0026-0452 (imprimé)
plus de différences que de ressemblances.
1492-1421 (numérique)

Découvrir la revue

Citer cet article

Angelelli, C. (2000). Interpretation as a Communicative Event:

A Look through Hymes' Lenses. Meta, 45(4), 580–592.
doi:10.7202/001891ar

Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services
Tous droits réservés © Les Presses de l'Université de d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous
Montréal, 2000 pouvez consulter en ligne. [https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-
dutilisation/]

Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit.

Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l’Université
de Montréal, l’Université Laval et l’Université du Québec à Montréal. Il a pour
mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. www.erudit.org
580 Meta, XLV, 4, 2000

Interpretation as a Communicative Event:

A Look through Hymes’ Lenses1

claudia angelelli
Stanford University, United States of America

RÉSUMÉ
Au cours des dix dernières années, davantage de chercheurs et de praticiens se sont
intéressés à l’interprétation en milieu social. Il s’agissait très souvent de voir quelles
étaient les ressemblances et les différences entre cette forme d’interprétation et les
autres, des problèmes de reconnaissance et de prestige se posant fréquemment. Toute-
fois, ce furent souvent les critères de l’interprétation de conférence qui furent appliqués
à l’interprétation en milieu social et qui déterminèrent comment l’évaluer et l’enseigner.
Ce transfert aveugle ne permettait évidemment pas de prendre pleinement conscience
de l’énorme complexité de l’interprétation en milieu social. La présente recherche utilise
la taxonomie de Hymes pour comparer et analyser deux interprétations, une en milieu
social et l’autre lors d’une conférence, entre lesquelles notre analyse suggère qu’il y a
plus de différences que de ressemblances.

ABSTRACT
In the last ten years, more researchers and practitioners have turned their attention to
community interpreting. Issues of similarities and differences with other forms of inter-
preting, as well as recognition and prestige, have arisen. It is often the case that the
standards of conference interpreting are blindly transferred to other forms of interpreting
both for measurement and educational purposes. This blind transfer does not allow a
full understanding of the complexities involved in community interpreting. Hymes’ tax-
onomy of speaking is used to compare and analyze two interpreting events, one occur-
ring in a community setting and the other in a conference one. The analysis suggests
that there are more differences than similarities between the two settings. The differ-
ences point to a complex form of social interaction which needs attention in its own
right.

MOTS-CLÉS/KEYWORDS
communicative event, community and conference interpreting, ethnography of speaking,
similarities and differences, norms of interaction and of interpretation

Introduction
Interpretation2 occurs during cross-cultural communication when two interlocutors
do not share a language. The goal of translation or interpretation (T&I) is that a
message makes the same impact on the target audience that a speaker/signer intends
for an audience of her/his same language. More often than not, the task of the inter-
preter is portrayed as one of “transcoding,” a simple changing of one code (e.g. French,
or ASL) to another (e.g. Spanish or American English). Is that enough to meet the
goal of interpretation stated above? Probably not, since there is much more to com-
munication than words or signs. Communication involves intention, context, form,
gist, gesture, tone, relations of power, etc. The various and wide-ranging components

Meta, XLV, 4, 2000

 interpretation as a communicative event 581

of different situations where interpretation takes place make very different demands
of the interpreter. A question we must consider is the following: How can we get a
deeper understanding of interpretation that will allow us to meet the goals of com-
munication in the different settings and contexts?

I. Literature Review
The current research on interpretation does not provide a comprehensive answer to
this question. It has focused mainly on communication during conference interpre-
tation (Gile 1983, 1988, 1991; Moser-Mercer 1994; Lambert 1989; Seleskovitch and
Lederer 1989); emphasis has been given to the simultaneous mode over the consecu-
tive one; and interpretation has mostly been viewed as a linear relationship between
a speaker and a listener who do not share a linguistic code. The emphasis, however,
has not been on interpretation as a social act; rather it has reflected a psycholinguis-
tic and neurolinguistic approach to interpretation (except recently, for example, for
Berk-Seligson 1990; Linell 1997; Kondo and Tebble 1997; Roy 1989 and 2000;
Torsello 1997; Wadensjo 1996 and 1998). Discussion has been frequently limited to
the question of linguistic codes and language or information processing.
Although limited to conference interpreting of oral languages, Seleskovitch and
Lederer’s work (1989) has been considered by the field of interpretation as one of the
main pillars and classics since they were the first to write on interpretation and inter-
pretation pedagogy. According to these authors, interpretation is the transfer of a
message across languages. The interpreter’s role is simply to decode and encode the
message in such a way that the meaning and form may transfer into the language of
the second party to produce the same effect that they would have produced in an
audience who shared the first party’s language.
Also from within the field of T&I, Gile (1995: 21-27) argues for a communica-
tion model in translation and interpretation that includes the following components:
1) aim/intention (inform, explain, convince); 2) sender; 3) discourse (content and
package); and 4) receiver. Gile’s addition to Seleskovitch and Lederer’s formula was
the element of intention. Gile’s “discourse (content and package)” equals the sum of
“linguistic and extralinguistic component” suggested by his predecessors.
Although the research in conference interpreting is sparse at best, at present
there is even less research on community interpreting. The similarities and differences
between conference and community interpreting have barely been discussed and never
empirically studied. In a recent presentation on this topic, Roberts posed the question
“what’s in a name?” and argued for the fact that “Interpreting is interpreting.” Her
argument was based on the similarities of community and conference interpreting in
order for the former to achieve the same status and prestige that the later enjoys
today. Roberts’ analysis was based on a comparison of the following five elements: 1)
the modes of interpreting (simultaneous, consecutive, short consecutive); 2) the
modes of discourse (monologues and dialogues); 3) the discourse types (narrative,
procedural); 4) the evaluation criteria (style of presentation, accuracy of content);
and 5) the ethical principles (confidentiality, recognition of limits of expertise). She
concluded that both types of interpretation were equal on the types of skills they
required from interpreters and on the ethical principles they observed. For Roberts,
“it would not make any sense to make distinctions according to settings and have
582 Meta, XLV, 4, 2000

separate training programs and code of ethics for each type of interpreting.” In her
opinion, “the real difference is the weight that each type of interpretation assigned to
each category. For example, there is more dialogue in community interpreting since
in conference interpreting it is generally limited to the period of questions and an-
swers.” (Roberts 1998).
Through numerous interviews I held with community interpreters I found some
support for Robert’s argument. In an attempt to be recognized and enjoy some of the
prestige that conference interpreters enjoy today, community interpreter organiza-
tions, in fact, try to emulate conference interpreters in some way (e.g. assessment
criteria for in-service trainees, guidelines, etc.) instead of establishing criteria based
on their own needs. Therefore, often the standards of conference interpreting (both
for instructional and measurement purposes) get transferred to other types of inter-
preting. However, if it can be shown that different interpretation situations are
different in substantive ways (without falling into the prestige trap), a single standard
of interpretation will be seen as inappropriate since different communicative events
require different performances on the part of the interpreter. The analysis of simi-
larities and differences will shed light on the complexities involved in community
interpreting. By understanding the complexities involved, community interpreting
should gain more recognition than it has at present.
In this paper, I will explore interpretation events where the standards of confer-
ence interpreting (regardless of prestige) may prove insufficient to gain an under-
standing of the complexity involved in community interpreting. For that purpose I
will consider Hymes’ theory of communication as a possible remedy to the gap left
by interpretation research when trying to understand and explain interpretation as a
communicative event. I will then describe two interpretation events observed in two
different settings as part of a larger study3 and look at them through Hymes’ lenses.

II. Interpretation Situations as Communicative Events

This section will focus on two interpretation situations: conference and community
interpreting. My view is that these represent two points on an interpretation
continuum, rather than a dichotomy. The rationale behind choosing to compare
conference interpreting in a simultaneous mode (done in a booth) with community
interpreting in consecutive mode is what emerges from the literature (see Introduc-
tion) and from the average situations observed.
A close look at the interaction of both community and conference interpretation
situations shows that there are various important differences. What we now know
may be limited to the following contrasts (based on higher frequency of occurences):

Community Interpreting Conference Interpreting

Dialogic mode
Equal amount of work into both languages
Possibility of controlling the traffic flow
Monologic mode (mostly)
Most of the work into one language
(interpreter’s A language, generally)
Unable to control the speaker
(except for requests to reduce speed when
equipment allows for it – speaker button)
 interpretation as a communicative event 583

Parties’ participation in the communicative Parties’ participation in the communicative

event may not be optional
(e.g. in the case of a patient)
Maximum potential for different backgrounds
between the parties
Maximum potential for linguistic varieties
of the same code (in both languages)
Maximum potential for different registers
event may be optional (e.g. in the case of a
member of the audience)
Minimum potential for different backgrounds
between the parties
Minimum potential for linguistic varieties
of the same code (in only one language,
the speaker’s)
Minimum potential for different registers

Hymes’ framework for understanding a communicative event may offer a more com-
plete and more complex characterization of the similarities and differences of these
two interpreting events.

III. Hymes’ theory of communication

Hymes’ contribution to the field of communication is fundamental. He calls for an
expansion of the scope of linguistics: an ethnography of communication that would
study “communicative form and function in integral relation to each other” (Hymes
1974: 5). Hymes does not deny the importance of formal linguistics. Rather, he adds
a new dimension to it so that communication might be considered as a whole.
Hymes bases his ethnography of communication partly on the roots of linguistics
(and formal linguistic) and partly on a general perspective of human behavior with
roots in anthropology, sociology and psychology. He states that “the kind of linguis-
tics that can contribute to the ethnography of communication is now generally
known as sociolinguistics” (1974: 8). But, he carefully defines this term according to an
ethnography of speaking in order to differentiate his focus from other concentrations
that also fall under sociolinguistics. Examples of these are Labov’s work on discrete
phonetic units, or the interactionists’ approach to sociolinguistics such as Schiffrin,
Tannen, or Kasper (mainly for discourse analysis and conversational analysis).
For Hymes, sociolinguistics viewed from the standpoint of ethnography of
speaking must be part of the study of communication as a whole. He states that a
change in a number of orientations toward language is necessary for the contribu-
tion of the ethnography of speaking to be realized. He distinguishes the following
seven orientations: 1) the structure, or system of speech (la parole); 2) function as
prior to warranting structure; 3) language as organized in terms of a plurality of
functions, the different functions themselves warranting different perspectives and
organizations; 4) the appropriateness of linguistic elements and messages; 5) diver-
sity of the functions of diverse languages and other communicative means; 6) the
community or other social context as starting point of analysis and understanding;
7) functions themselves to be warranted in context, and in general the place, bound-
aries and organization of language and of other communicative means in a commu-
nity to be taken as problematic (1974: 9). In short, primacy of speech to code, function
to structure, and context to message.
Hymes suggests a taxonomy of speaking, whose natural unit of analysis is the
584 Meta, XLV, 4, 2000

speech community (1974: 35). He defines a speech community as “a social, rather

than a linguistic entity” (1974: 47) thus differentiating it from language. This distinc-
tion separates Hymes ‘work from Bloomfield’s or Chomsky’s since the later have
equated speech community to language. Hymes’ theory of speaking considers as fun-
damental the notions of ways of speaking, fluent speaker, speech community, speech
situation, speech event, speech act, rules of speaking and function of speech (for defini-
tions within the context of the interpretation events see IV 1 and 2). He also analyzes
the following speech components (1974: 53-62):
1. message form: how something is said by members in a given speech community and
according to the descriptive characteristics outlined above;
2. message content: topic and change of topic;
3. setting: the time and place of a speech act and, in general, the physical circumstances;
4. scene: the cultural definition of an occasion; the “psychological setting”;
5. participants: may include the following: speaker, or sender; addressor; hearer, or re-
ceiver, or audience; addressee;
6. purposes – outcomes: the expected outcome of a speech event as recognized by the
speech community;
7. purposes – goals: the intentions of participants and the strategies they define;
8. key: tone, manner, or spirit of a speech act (e.g. seriousness, sarcasm, etc.);
9. channels: the medium of speech transmission (e.g. oral, written, visual, etc.);
10. forms of speech: the different languages, dialects, varieties, and registers used in a
speech event/act; may be joined with channels as means or agencies of speaking;
11. norms of interaction: rules governing speaking;
12. norms of interpretation: the belief system of a community and how that interacts
with the frame of references for understanding utterances; and
13. genres: categories of speech (e.g. poem, myth, tale, proverb, riddle, curse, prayer,
oration, lecture, etc.); though often coincidental with speech event, genres must be
treated as analytically independent.
Hymes’ approach to communication is comprehensive and complex. But does it help
to understand the complexities of communication via interpretation?

IV. A “Hymesian” approach to interpretation

From a larger corpus (400 interpretation events) which is part of a larger study in
progress, I have selected two interpretation situations (community and conference)
to focus on and discuss their fundamental notions. Then, Hymes’ components of a
communicative event will be discussed and applied to both situations in Table I.
The case selected for the analysis of Community Interpreting portrays a 36-year
old female (Marcia4) interpreting for a middle-aged male Spanish Heritage speaker
at the Office of Car Registration on the West Coast. The OCR officer, Caucasian
middle-aged male, is trying to explain the forms that have to be completed in order
to avoid further delays on a vehicle registration. The two interlocutors engaged in a
cross-linguistic communication facilitated by the interpreter.
The case selected for the analysis of Conference Interpreting involves a middle-
aged Caucasian CEO of Engines, Inc.5 launching a new model during a press confer-
ence in the Great Lakes area. The audience is made up of 150 journalists, 65% male
from around the US. There are 4 teams of interpreters serving French, Spanish,
 interpretation as a communicative event 585

German and Portuguese audiences. The interpreter portrayed in this analysis is a

middle-aged Caucasian male (Pierre6) hired by the Conference Organizers to work in
the French booth. There are four language booths working in this conference:
French, German, Japanese and English. The interpreters facilitate communication
between the CEO and the audience.

1. Community interpretation: an analysis of the fundamental notions

of the communicative event according to Hymes
We may assume that a community interpreter is probably quite familiar with the
ways of speaking that occur in her/his community. Undoubtedly, this means that she/
he is a fluent speaker of that speech community. In the example of the interpretation
event at OCR in Muirwood City, we cannot say that both interlocutors share a speech
community. The speech community of Muirwood City residents may be totally differ-
ent from the speech community of OCR officers. Marcia is a member of the speech
community of Muirwood City residents but not of the OCR officers. The speech
situation is the conversation between the Hispanic driver and the Caucasian OCR
officer (both belonging to different speech communities) about a change in the regis-
tration of a motor vehicle. The speech event is an exchange during that interview (the
officer explains the process to the driver); the speech act is a remark during that
conversation (tone, irony, etc., e.g. the driver uses irony to express frustration about
the unnecessary complexity of the process).

2. Conference interpretation: an analysis of the fundamental notions

of the communicative event according to Hymes
A conference interpreter has to be familiar with the ways of speaking that occur in a
conference. However, this does not necessarily mean that he/she must be a fluent
speaker of that speech community (of which the speaker and the audience are genuine
members who do not share a common language); Pierre is in fact a “temporary
guest” of that community (as it is the case of most free-lance interpreters who con-
stantly change from one speech community to another; for example, from glass pro-
duction to automobile marketing). The exception may be the staff interpreters for
organizations such as the UN or the IB, who have acquired an identity within those
communities as co-speakers. If we follow the example of the automobile manufac-
turer (Engines, Inc. launching its new model at the International Automobile Fair in
January ’98), and we consider that a speech community (Automobile Marketing
Experts, Automobile dealers and specialized press), the speech situation within it is
the press conference launching this model. The speech event is a speech during that
conference (the CEO responsible for Marketing shows the advantages of the model).
The speech act is a remark during that speech (a joke—for example the CEO jokes
about the potential buyers of the new model).
In Table I, I will illustrate how Hymes’ components of speech (1974: 53-62) can
serve as a framework to analyze those two interpretation events (the Engines, Inc.
conference and the conversation at OCR in Muirwood City).
586 Meta, XLV, 4, 2000
V. The components of communicative events according to Hymes7
TABLE I
Hymes’ Components of
Speech
Setting: the time and place of
a speech act and, in general,
the physical circumstances
Scene: the cultural definition
of an occasion; the “psycho-
logical setting”
Participants: may include the
following: speaker, or sender;
addressor; hearer, or receiver,
or audience; addressee
Community Interpreting
(at OCR, between officer and
client)
Setting: the physical circum-
stances of a speech (such as
time and place) are as evident
to the interpreter as they are
to the interlocutors. They play
an essential role in communi-
cation as they provide the
context for what is being said.
Scene: speakers and listeners
do not share it, as they do
not belong to the same
speech community. Therefore
it might be more accessible
or evident for the interpreter
as he explores it not so much
as an outsider does but as a
“discovering” party. The
situation allows for clarifica-
tion.
Speaker or sender: the roles
are interchangeable. As it is a
dialogic mode (Wadensjo
1998), the speaker becomes
the listener and the listener
becomes the speaker.
Addressor: if we stretch
Hymes’ definition, we could
say that the interpreter
becomes the spokesperson of
both speakers in the language
into which she/he is inter-
preting.
Hearer, or receiver or audience:
the interaction between
speaker and listener is
constant. The interpreter
considers the speakers’ and
listeners’ native language code
to convert the message as she/
he also acknowledges
Conference Interpreting
(in the conference room,
between speaker and
audience in simultaneous
mode in a booth)
Setting: the physical circum-
stances of a speech (such as
time and place) are as evident
to the interpreter as they are
to the interlocutors. They play
an essential role in communi-
cation as they provide the
context for what is being said.
Scene: speaker generally
shares it with listener since
both belong to the same
speech community. It might be
not as accessible or evident to
the interpreter. There is little
possibility to “explore and
discover.” The situation does
not always allow for clarifica-
tion.
Speaker or sender: the
conference interpreter
normally follows one speaker
at a time in a monologic
form (Wadensjo 1998).
Addressor: if we stretch
Hymes’ definition, we could
say that the interpreter
becomes the spokesperson of
the speaker in the language
into which she/he is inter-
preting.
Hearer, or receiver or audience:
in a conference setting, the
audience is silent except for
the period of questions and
answers. The interaction
between speaker and audience
is therefore limited. The
interpreter considers the

Purposes-outcomes: the
expected outcome of a speech
event as recognized by the
speech community
Purposes-goals: the intentions
of participants and the
strategies they define
Message form: how something
is said by members in a given
speech community and
according to the descriptive
characteristics outlined above
interpretation as a communicative event
different linguistic varieties
and registers. It is always
possible to negotiate meaning.
Addressee: the interpreter
identifies the addressees in
each exchange, she/he is able
to see how the message and
event may be anticipated at
its destination (Is the officer
going to be surprised by a
tone? Is the driver going to
feel intimidated by the tone?)
Purposes - outcomes: the
interpreter cannot do the job
if she/he does not understand
what is the particular
outcome of the communica-
tive event. (Is it a decision to
renew a license, an intention
to extend a deadline to pay
registration?) There is room
for negotiation.
Purposes - goals: the inter-
preter will focus more on the
participant’s intentions, on
their goals within the
outcome. (Who is making the
decision about the renewal?
Who will the decision affect
and how is that party
accommodating to the
making of that decision?). As
there is interaction, the
interpreter has the opportu-
nity to clarify.
Message form: the community
interpreter by virtue of being
a community member could
be familiar with how
members of that community
speak. She/he may or may not
be familiar with how OCR
officers speak to community
members who do not work
587
audience’s native language
code to convert the message
(even when different linguis-
tic varieties cannot generally
be acknowledged or negoti-
ated). There is no dialogue
between the interpreter and
the audience at this market-
ing conference except for the
Q&A period.
Addressee: when the inter-
preter identifies the address-
ees, she/he is able to see how
the message and event may be
anticipated at its destination.
(Are the sellers expecting this
new marketing campaign?)
Purposes - outcomes: the
interpreter will benefit if he
understands what is the
particular outcome of the
communicative event. (Is it a
decision on a new model, a
legal ruling about some
sales?) There is almost no
room for negotiation.
Purposes - goals: the inter-
preter will focus more on the
participants’ intentions, on
their goals within the
outcome. (Who is making the
decision about the new
model? Who will the decision
affect and how is that party
accommodating to the
making of that decision?)
Message form: “the more a
way of speaking has become
shared and meaningful within
a group the more likely that
crucial clues will be efficient”
(p. 55). It would be reason-
able to say then that the
interpreter should be aware of
the competence that speakers
588 Meta, XLV, 4, 2000
Message content: topic and
change of topic
Key: tone, manner, or spirit
of a speech act (e.g. serious-
ness, sarcasm, etc.)
Channels: the medium of
speech transmission (e.g.
oral, written, telegraphic, etc.)
Forms of speech: the different
languages, dialects, varieties,
and registers used in a speech
event/act; may be joined
with channels as means or
agencies of speaking
Norms of interaction: rules
governing speaking
there (depending if she/he
even went through the same
experience herself/himself).
In this sense, she/he has an
advantage over the “tempo-
rary guest” at least for being
familiar with one of the
parties.
Message content: the inter-
preter can follow a topic and
a change of topic by carefully
following the meaning of
what is being said.
Since the parties do not
necessarily share the same
communicative competence,
negotiation on the part of the
interpreter may be necessary.
The situation allows
negotiation.
Key: the interpreter will focus
on the tone, manner or spirit
of the each of the interlocu-
tors.
Channels: the interpreter has
only one input and that is
the oral channel.
Forms of speech: the inter-
preter needs to be aware of
different registers, varieties,
etc. used by both the speaker
and the listener. The situation
allows for negotiation and
clarification.
Norms of interaction: the
interpreter will see a wide
variety of interactions during
of the automobile marketing
community have and share in
order to be able to go beyond
the content of an explicit
statement. But, is this
possible? Can a “temporary
guest” of a speech community
achieve this? How much time
does a “temporary guest” have
to spend within that commu-
nity in order to grasp the
ways of speaking of this speech
community?
Message content: members of
the automobile marketing
group know what is being
said and when what is being
said has changed. Their
communicative competence
within the group allows them
to manage maintenance and
change of topic. Apparently,
the message content is more
concrete than the message
form and therefore might be
more accessible to a “tempo-
rary guest.” The interpreter
can follow a topic and a
change of topic by carefully
following the meaning of
what is being said.
Key: the interpreter will focus
on the tone, manner or spirit
of the speaker
Channels: the interpreter may
have more than one input
since the oral channel may be
complemented by visual or
written modes projected on a
screen.
Forms of speech: the inter-
preter needs to be aware of
different registers, varieties,
etc. used by the speaker.
There is no room for
negotiation or clarification.
Norms of interaction: the
interpreter will not see many
interactions during this
 interpretation as a communicative event 589

this event. Often, the OCR conference, except for the

officer and the non-English
speaker (NES) do not share
the same sense of appropri-
ateness of ways of speaking.
For example, if the NES is
from Argentina, overlapping
will be the rule during a
conversation, while the officer
may expect turn-taking
period of questions and
answers. Generally, speaker
and audience share the same
sense of appropriateness of
asking and answering
questions in public.

Norms of interpretation: the Norms of interpretation: Norms of interpretation:

belief system of a community
and how that interacts with
the frame of references for
understanding utterances
generally, the interpreter will
have a two-way focus on
interpretation of utterances.
He will be concerned about
how to portray the speaker in
a way that is acceptable to the
listener and vice-versa. If the
driver is a Korean, she/he will
probably not look the officer
in the eyes; if the officer is
not familiar with Korean
culture, he will probably be
suspicious. The interpreter
will need to be on the watch!
generally, the interpreter will
have a one-way focus on
interpretation of utterances.
He will be concerned about
how to portray the speaker
in a way that is acceptable to
the interaction of the target
audience (again, the exception
being the period of questions
and answers when it will be a
two-way concern).

Genres: categories of speech
(e.g. poem, myth, tale,
proverb, riddle, curse, prayer,
oration, lecture, etc.); though
often coincidental with
speech events, genres must
be treated as analytically
independent
Genres: the interpreter will
benefit from recognizing the
genre of the speech that does
not always coincide with the
event. For example, the officer
may lecture the community
member about a certain
occurrence but certainly the
event is not a lecture.
Genres: the interpreter will
benefit from recognizing the
genre of the speech that does
not always coincide with the
event. For example, the
marketing expert may be
giving part of a sermon to
imitate a priest’s advice to
use the new model Laville,
but he will most definitely
not be preaching.

VI. Discussion
What do the contrasts from the table above tell us about the differences in interpre-
tation tasks? Even when the differences are numerous, this discussion will concen-
trate only on the most salient ones:
Scene: Marcia could be able to discover or explore the “psychological settings”
that the two parties may not share. The constant interaction with both speaker and
listener allow for negotiation and clarification. On the other hand, Pierre may wit-
ness a situation in which speaker and listeners might share the scene (since they all
belong to the same speech community), but there is little or no room to negotiate
meaning with the speaker if needed.
Participants: Marcia is in constant interaction with both speaker and listener
(whose roles are exchanged). She interprets for both parties as long as they participate
590 Meta, XLV, 4, 2000

in the speech event. As Marcia is facing a dialogic situation (of which she is an active
participant too), she has the opportunity to interact differently if she needed to ne-
gotiate meaning (ask for elaboration, clarification, etc.). Pierre, on the other hand,
has limited interaction with the speaker or the audience and only interprets for the
speaker in a monologic mode.
Purposes-outcomes: the differences in setting may affect the interpretation (un-
derstanding) of the outcome. Marcia might be able to negotiate her/his interpretation
of the outcome whereas Pierre does not have this opportunity.
Message form and content: Marcia is a member of the speech community of at
least one of the parties (this is a significant difference from Pierre, the conference
interpreter). During the interpretation act, as she tries to discover and explore the
competence of the speaker with whom she is not familiar, Marcia has the opportu-
nity to negotiate the message form and content. Pierre does not necessarily belong to
the speech community that the speaker and the listener share; he would probably have
better access to the content than to the form. The monologic mode does not allow
much room for negotiation.
Forms of speech: Marcia is working with the speaker’s and the listener’s forms of
speech, while Pierre is only focusing on the speaker’s.
Norms of interaction and norms of interpretation: the community interpretation
is a two-way interaction of three parties (speaker, listener and interpreter) who nego-
tiate rules of interaction and interpretation (via the interpreter). During the confer-
ence where Pierre is interpreting, on the other hand, he follows a speaker in a
one-way speech event. In this sense, the differences in norms of interaction and in-
terpretation are minimal.

Conclusion
A Hymesian approach to an interpretation event and a Hymesian analysis of all its
components allow a better and deeper understanding of similarities and differences
across interpretation settings. It is only after we understand the complexity of a com-
munication event that we can actually work within it (i.e. interpret it, in the case of
the two examples studied above, or teach it, or assess it, etc.). Hymes’ framework
allows us to see that a single standard of interpretation is insufficient since the great
difference in the situations, considered as communicative events, require different
performances by the interpreter. Each of the interpretation settings described above
calls not only for different abilities on the part of the interpreters (Marcia and Pierre)
but also for a different understanding of the components of the communication act.
By re-defining the interpretation situation as a communicative event and using
Hymes’ framework, we achieve a better understanding of the demands made of
interpreters and how these differ in important ways depending on the context of the
event.
Undoubtedly, a Hymesian approach to interpretation will have several implica-
tions both for the field of interpretation research and for pedagogy if we want to
educate interpreters who can work in different settings at all levels of society.
 interpretation as a communicative event 591

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to express my appreciation to my colleague Jason Railey for his valuable suggestions on the first
draft of this paper. I also want to thank two parties: the research participants whose insight was essential
to this analysis and Christian Degueldre for the translation into French.

NOTES
1. The first version of this paper was presented at the 37th Congress of the Fédération Internationale
des Traducteurs in Mons, Belgium, in August 1999.
2. Although the term translation has sometimes been used in the literature to refer to both interpret-
ing and written translation, this work will treat them separately. For the purpose of this essay, inter-
pretation is defined as the rendering of discourse spoken or signed in one language (source) into a
spoken or signed form of another language (target).
3. During 28 months I surveyed, recorded and observed interpreters in conference, court, medical and
community settings. Four hundred interpretation events form a pool of naturalistic data upon
which this study draws.
4. Names have been changed to pseudonyms to protect the identity of research participants and of sites.
5. Idem.
6. Idem.
7. Adapted from Hymes 1964, 1974 and 1989.

REFERENCES
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990): The Bilingual Courtroom. Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process,
Chicago, Chicago University Press.
Gile, D. (1983): « Aspects méthodologiques de l’évaluation de la qualité de travail en interpréta-
tion simultanée », Meta, 28-3, p. 236-243.
—– (1988): « Le partage de l’attention et le modèle d’efforts en interprétation simultanée », The
Interpreter’s Newsletter, 1-4, p. 22.
—– (1991): “The processing capacity issue in conference interpreting,” Babel, 37-1, pp. 15-27.
—– (1994): “Postcript,” Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Interpreting: What do we know and how? (Turku, Finland. August
25-27, 1994) (Gambier, Gile and Taylor, eds.), Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing,
pp. 207-211.
Giles, D. (1995): Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training, Amsterdam,
John Benjamins Publishing.
Hymes, D. (1964): “Introduction: toward ethnographies of communication,” American Anthro-
pologist, 66-2, pp. 12-25.
—– (1974): Foundations in Sociolinguistics. An Ethnographic Approach, Philadelphia, University of
Pennsylvania Press.
—– (1989): “Ways of speaking,” Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (R. Bauman and J.
Sherzer, eds.), 2nd ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 433-452.
Kondo, M. and H. Tebble (1997): “Intercultural communication, negotiation and interpreting,”
Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research. Proceedings of the International Conference
on Interpreting: What do we know and how? (Turku, Finland. August 25-27, 1994) (Gambier,
Gile and Taylor, eds.), Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 149-166.
Lambert, S. (1989): « La formation de l’interprète : la méthode cognitive », Meta, 34-4, p. 736-744.
Linell, P. (1997): “Interpreting as communication,” Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in
Research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Interpreting: What do we know and
how? (Turku, Finland. August 25-27, 1994) (Gambier, Gile and Taylor, eds.), Amsterdam,
John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 49-67.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1994): “Aptitude testing in conference interpreting: why, when and
how,” Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation (S. Lambert and
B. Moser-Mercer, eds.), Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing.
592 Meta, XLV, 4, 2000

Roberts, R. (1998): What’s in a name? Interpreting is interpreting, paper presented at the 39th
American Translators Association Annual Conference in Hilton Head (SC), November,
1998.
Roy, C. (1989): A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Interpreter’s Role in the Turn Exchanges of an
Interpreted Event, dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington (DC).
—– (2000): Interpreting as a Discourse Process, New York, Oxford University Press.
Seleskovitch, D. et M. Lederer (1989): Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation, Bruxelles, Didier
Érudition, coll. « Traductologie », no 4.
Torsello, C. (1997): “Linguistics, Discourse analysis and interpretation,” Conference Interpreting:
Current Trends in Research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Interpreting: What
do we know and how? (Turku, Finland. August 25-27, 1994) (Gambier, Gile and Taylor,
eds.), Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 167-186).
Wadensjo, C. (1998): Interpreting as Interaction, New York, Addison Wesley Longman.